From Titanians to Freedom Cells: Boris Podolsky, Bob Podolsky, John David Garcia, Teknekron Corporation, Vivek Ranadivé, Noosphere, Omega Point, Derrick Broze

For the time being, I will leave the following links as placeholders – with the intention of circling back with specifics . . . That said, I hope the links may speak for themselves . . .

The foundation of the Freedom Cell Network are the small groups of eight people known as inner cadres. The members of these groups voluntarily associate with one another and commit to support one another through mutual aid and reciprocity. The groups should create a vision and mission statement, establish common goals, and meet regularly, at least once a month, to check in with one another.

Why eight people?

The number eight comes from the work of John David Garcia and Bob Podolsky. In 2005, Garcia published a book titled Creative Transformation: A Practical Guide for Maximizing Creativity. Garcia believed that creativity was one of the most important characteristics an individual or group could strive for. After much research, Garcia found that eight people is the optimal number for a group to be the most creative.

Couples are usually too small a group. They find it easy to accept common delusions. Still, we are better off in a couple than we are alone. Groups larger than eight soon begin to create a hierarchy whose members find it difficult to treat each other with equal respect and to communicate on a personal level, soul to soul. It becomes almost impossible for groups larger than fifteen. Larger groups should be broken down into smaller groups, preferably of eight each. Therefore, if the process is to be optimized, it should involve four men and four women who freely choose each other and agree to work together to become creatively transformed. Persons who have difficulty creating their own groups of eight may expect help in forming groups of eight from those who have already begun the process. THE NEW SYNTHESIS

This number of eight is something we strive for in the Freedom Cell Network however it is not an absolute. The aim is for the inner cadre group to have as close to eight people as possible. And while a split between men and women is ideal, it is also not an absolute.

Jeff Berwick interviews Bob Podolsky, topics include: the importance of ethics, relevant ethics can be learned in a short time, defining what an ethic actually is, most ethics are not valid, 4 valid ethics, ethical organizations, The Titania Project, the discovery of the Octologue and the HoloMat, ethical purpose and unanimity, but what about the roads? hierarchy is unnecessary and tends to evil, over large organizations make unethical decisions, anarchy is not disorganization, leaderless but effective organizations, un-management, swarms, permitting and regulation in the US vs Mexico, law enforcement as crime, real money as defined in the constitution is considered counterfeiting, providing an ethical support framework for members of government, Max Igan, creating prosperity, doing away with authority is an idea who’s time has come!

Father of Bob Podolsky:

Referenced in Podolsky’s Flourish (mentioned above):

John David Garcia (ca. 1936 - November 23, 2001 in Springfield, Oregon, USA) - founder of the Society for Evolutionary Ethics (SEE), taught an enlightened vision of ethics and human purpose via four books, dozens of articles, lectures, seminars and attempts to found schools based on his ideas. He did these things mainly in the US, then in Chile and Mexico.

A self-described moral protagonist and scientific generalist, he sought to advance human evolution through increased moral awareness and creativity. (Creativity = Intelligence * ethics). He viewed the evolutionary ethic as a “rational alternative to death” and devoted his life to learning, teaching and creating. He once described his main intellectual contribution as having synthesized the ethical visions of Spinoza and Teilhard de Chardin.

His first book, The Moral Society (1971), presented the fundamental theories and scientific basis for the evolutionary ethic and then detailed alternative applications, the “Moral Society” being the rational alternative to death of the species. He re-structered his evolutionary ethic theories and re-applied them in his best-selling “PsychoFraud and Ethical Therapy”, a condemnation of contemporary psychotherapy based upon its failure to begin with moral purpose.

Students and admirers of Garcia generally consider his third book, Creative Transformation (1991), his finest work; a logical extrapolation of evolution in general and autopoiesis in particular. After offering a review of human evolution and awareness, he offered a practical guide for those seeking to expand their creative potential. For Garcia, creativity was the measure of, the key process within, and the ultimate purpose for morality. He advocated creativity as a motivator of human action and a teachable process with the potential to increase forever (a Teilhardian idea). Garcia’s work stands out as one of the great integrations of scientific and philosophical thought.

Garcia believed that specialization in one area of study was a mistake; a poor compromise made because most need to maximize their employability in the short term. He preferred to earn his living filing for and licensing patents, starting companies and offering his often stunning intellectual talents.

Garcia’s formal education ended when he had earned his second master’s degree because he felt that academia is generally comprised of people who are too specialized and who focus more on impressing others with their own mastery and intelligence rather than helping increase the mastery and intelligence of their students. As a teacher, Garcia was a master of the dialectic method and the scope and breadth of his knowledge never failed to impress.

According to Garcia, in the past people were seldom confronted by a need to choose between happiness and creativity because the environment that people found themselves in was “forgiving” enough that actions that maximized happiness tended also to increase creativity (e.g., as an unintended side-effect). As the human environment has changed (via, eg, progress in technology and communications and, eg, population growth), happiness has become less and less acceptable as a guide to human action, with the result that if most people continue to pursue happiness as their ultimate goal in life, the outcome is likely to be disaster for the human species.

Garcia’s response to this observation was to spend the last 30 years of his life trying to persuade as many people as possible to devote their lives to maximizing creativity instead of happiness. Garcia defined creativity (Total creativity) as the ability to predict and control the “total environment” – namely, the physical, biological and “psychosocial” (human mind and human culture) environments. In 1981 he organized the School of Experimental Ecology in Oregon and thereafter assembled various groups (favoring octets) to experiment with his creativity enhancement techniques.

Later, he subscribed to the theory that the human brain is a quantum device that can receive information from beyond spacetime, namely, from David Bohm’s Implicate Order. He designed and experimented with a “Quantum Ark” to act as an interface between mind and “higher order information systems”.

Garcia’s inventions included the “Electronic Signature Lock” (and related biometric techniques) for security applications, a real-time computer system for expedited dispatch of taxis, and an automated electronic vehicle localizer (used extensively in cities and ports). He co-founded the Teknekron Corporation.

Garcia was fluent in English, Castilian, French, Portuguese, Italian, and German. He also spoke passable Chinese and read other languages, including Hebrew.

Books

see On-Line Books

  • The Moral Society
  • Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy
  • Creative Transformation
  • The Ethical State: An Essay on Political Ethics

https://www.computerhistory.org/brochures/t-z/com-42bc231852f71/

Patent History

Patent number: 4621334

Type: Grant

Filed: Aug 26, 1983

Date of Patent: Nov 4, 1986

Assignee: Electronic Signature Lock Corporation (Berkeley, CA)

Inventor: John D. Garcia (San Francisco, CA)

Application Number: 6/526,858

The subject system is based upon the concept that the coordination of a person’s fingers is neurophysiologically determined and unique for a given genotype. Any situation in which a person has to reproduce a rapidly changing pattern on one or more keys will produce the unique signature in terms of the time delays between each key pressed. This fact can be used to distinguish between genetically different individuals by means of the personal identification system of the subject invention.

About the Author

John David Garcia, the author of Creative Transformation: A Practical Guide for Maximizing Creativity and The Moral Society: A Rational Alternative to Death, earned a B.A. Biology, Chemistry and Psychology and an M.A. in Applied Mathematics and Physics from the University of California at Berkeley. After an early career as an aerospace engineer, he invented computer, communication, and energy systems and started seven computer and engineering firms. He has written over a hundred technical papers and submitted more than a dozen patent disclosures. Garcia was the founder and president of The School of Experimental Ecology located in Eugene, Oregon.

1 Like

https://www.see.org/garcia/e02.htm

The Incompatibility between Libertarianism and Democracy:
A Creative Alternative to Democracy

written on 27 September 1993 by
John David Garcia, School of Experimental Ecology
Eugene, OR 97440

A great man once said that democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other ones. The fact that democracy seems to be the least evil system of government up to now, does not mean that it is a good system, let alone the best system of government possible. In order to come up with a better system of government it is necessary to understand exactly how democracy functions, and what are both its inherent advantages and its inherent disadvantages.

The main advantage of democracy is that, it tends to diffuse power, and as a consequence inhibits the corruption of highly concentrated power elites; therefore, it is usually less tyrannical than all the other of systems of government tried, until now. Tyranny is always unethical because it diminishes at least one person’s creativity, including the tyrant’s, by taking away their right to choose alternative, more ethical courses of action.(2,3,7) The majority of all electorates will almost always sacrifice their own, and almost certainly others’, personal liberty in exchange for promises of more security from a centralized authority, which in virtually all democracies quickly becomes irreversibly evil and corrupt. Democratic authority, no matter how virtuous and well intentioned it originally was, becomes corrupted because professional politicians quickly learn that the easiest way to get elected is to openly share the fears and prejudices of the electoral majority, independently of the politicians true beliefs, and then to cater to, and manipulate, the majority by telling the lies the majority wishes to hear.

This was understood two thousand years ago by Cicero who said “the world wants to be deceived.” (6) It was even better understood twenty four hundred years ago by Socrates who said that democracy would never work because the least creative majority would always choose to live parasitically off of the most creative minority by confiscating their wealth and then redistributing it among themselves, the first clear understanding of socialism.(5) Spinoza rejected democracy because it was destructive to individual liberty, which was essential to maximize creativity. Spinoza said that democracy always leads to the imposition of the will of the majority on minorities, and that this was unethical, because the destruction of freedom also destroys creativity.(7)

As Bertrand Russell eventually learned through personal experience after running for public office, all democracies eventually become so corrupt that “only persons who are hypocritical, stupid, or both can be elected to public office.”(6) This is the case because the hypocrite has learned how to manipulate the majority by speaking what he does not believe; stupid politicians may actually believe some or all of what they say. Russell, presumably, considered anyone less clever than himself as stupid and he concluded that a majority of the electorate was stupid. My own observation is that politicians are more hypocritical than stupid, and that the electorate is more lazy and unethical than stupid. Most of the electorate could understand what is going on if they wished to spend any time studying it, by simply reading what has already been published on political corruption; however, they are too lazy to give up any of their 50 hours a week watching television to study and understand the political process. Furthermore, they are too unethical to reject the blatant lies that they are constantly told by charming but unethical politicians, such as Roosevelt, Reagan, and Clinton. It seems that most people choose to believe what they want to believe, not because it is true, but because believing it makes them happy. By definition, someone who values happiness more than truth, is already unethical.(2,3,4)

Almost all political paradigms fall into one of four classes, conservative, liberal, authoritarian, or libertarian. Conservatives are usually better off economically than the majority and wish no government interference in the economic sector, particularly concerning property rights, or forced government redistribution of wealth from those who have it, to those who have less of it; but conservatives wish government to control individual behavior that might be threatening to them, particularly crime, drug use, abortion, homosexuality, and any impediments to the aggressive expansion of their conservative religious beliefs. In terms of the ideological dichotomies used in my book (3), I would call these types of people conservatives of the right. A rightist is defined as anyone who believes that the major cause behind human differences is heredity instead of environment. In the United States most, but not all, conservatives are registered Republicans. Republicans, or Republican minded persons represent about 40% of the electorate.

The Democrats, or Democratically minded part of the electorate, are also about 40% of the electorate. These persons are usually called, incorrectly, from my point of view, “liberals”, although there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Again using my previous paradigm (3), I would call “liberals”, “liberal leftists”. A leftist is someone who believes that the major behavioral differences between persons are due to their environment and not to their heredity. A liberal is a person who is tolerant of change in all aspects of the environment particularly those changes which most affect his beliefs and paradigms, so long as those changes do not physically affect his life; while a conservative is a person who is intolerant of change in most aspects of the environment, particularly those that affect his beliefs and paradigms, even if they do not physically affect his life. All leftists are socialists; liberal socialists are known as “social democrats”; conservative socialists are often called “authoratarians”.

About 15% of the electorate in the United States prefers an authoritarian type of government that interferes in peoples lives in both (1) questions of personal morality, where authoritarians are usually conservative, and (2) in the economic sphere where authoritarians are usually leftists. Communism, fascism, and Islam are examples of recent authoratarian societies. Ross Perot, and many of his followers, are today’s authoritarians. Sometimes authoritarian political movements are called “populism”, “statism” or in my terms “conservative leftism”.(3)

The least popular of the four political paradigms in all countries of the world, is called “libertarianism”. It is most popular in the United States where, libertarianism was the political philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson. In the United States, the Libertarian party attracts about 5% of the electorate, although I suspect that if libertarian minded voters believed that there was any chance of the Libertarian party winning, the party might draw enough votes from Republicans, Democrats, Authoritarians, and possibly others, such as nihilists and existentialists, to perhaps have as many as 20% of the electorate. The libertarian believes that government should not interfere in peoples economic or moral life, except in protecting the members of society from undeserved harm from forces which violate their civil rights of life, liberty, and personal property. I define libertarians as, “radical liberals of the right”, according to my previous paradigm. (3) A libertarian believes that the only legitimate function of government is in (1) a judiciary and (2) the defense of life and property. The public defense of life against pollution and infectious diseases, not in providing general health care, is also justifiable to libertarians; all other activities should be left to 100%, voluntary associations between private parties. Libertarians regard the initiation of aggression by anyone, as evil.

I have shown, in my most recent book (2), that all political paradigms, other than libertarianism, lead to contradictions and are inherently unethical and destructive. Indeed it can be stated as a general theorem, that any political paradigm, other than libertarianism, will lead to the eventual collapse of the society that practices it. Although the United States was originally designed by the Founding Fathers in general, and Thomas Jefferson in particular, to be a libertarian society, it has rushed ever further toward socialism, because of democracy.

The concept of democracy is simply the rule of the majority; democracy is not in itself a political paradigm but merely a method of implementing one of the previous four paradigms. Thomas Jefferson made the mistake of believing that a democratic, republican form of government was the best way of maintaining a libertarian society. A democratic republic is a nation in which there is not direct democratic rule as in the Greek city states, but instead government is formed by representatives who are elected by majorities of the citizens, and the powers of government over individuals is limited by a constitution. At the beginning of the American republic, democracy seemed a reasonable risk to libertarians, in a society where 90% of the electorate were likely to be independent farmers on their own land for the foreseeable future. Of course, almost from the beginning of the nation the industrial revolution caused ever more people to concentrate in the cities, until today about 95% of the electorate are urban dwellers, and only about 5% are rural dwelling, relatively self-sufficient property owners.

Jefferson despised cities, which he saw as concentrations of parasitical, uncreative human beings who lived off of the labor of the more creative, self-sufficient farmers and inventive rural dwellers, whom he saw as much more worthy and creative than the city dwellers. But Jefferson lived long enough to see the trend of political dominance in national politics by city dwellers. However, I believe that Jefferson’s dream would have still failed, even if a majority of the population had remained self-sufficient, yeoman farmers, as Jefferson hoped and worked very hard to achieve with his illegal Louisiana purchase. The flaw in the American system of government is inherent to the very nature of democracy as Socrates, Cicero, Spinoza, and Russell had observed. A democracy will always be a tyranny of the majority; all tyrannies are destructive.

There is nothing inherently creative or ethical in having the allegiance of any popular majority.

Adolf Hitler, an authoritarian rightist, was democratically elected and had overwhelming majority support until he died. Richard Nixon, who almost succeeded in turning the United States into a police state, had overwhelming popular support in the 1972 presidential election. It would have been even higher without the Watergate incident We see today in the United States, that the only politicians who can be elected are those who tell the majority the lies they wish to hear, whether they speak the lies out of hypocrisy or out of stupidity. The 1992 presidential election in the United States, as well as almost all other elections, demonstrates this theorem.

In the 1992 presidential election Bill Clinton was the most mendacious of all the presidential candidates and he received about 43% of the popular vote. George Bush was the next most mendacious of the presidential candidates and he received about 37% of the popular vote. Ross Perot was the third most mendacious of the presidential candidates and he received about 19% of the popular vote. The only presidential candidates who eloquently spoke the truth at all times and had an ethically consistent political philosophy, were the Libertarian party candidates, Andre Marrou for President and Nancy Lord for Vice President; they received less than .5% of the popular vote. The presidential candidates of the Libertarian party were on all the ballots in all fifty states; their message was clearly disseminated for all who wanted to hear it. Yet the vast majority of the electorate preferred to vote for candidates who told them the lies they wished to hear. Furthermore, they voted in direct proportion to how much they lied to them.

This is the fatal flaw in democracy, the majority, at almost all political levels, and always at the national level, votes not on the basis of ethical principle but on the basis of whose lies they believe will make them happiest, by either distributing to them the wealth produced by others, or by chastising those who have beliefs, practices, or behaviors that are offensive to the majority. The reason for this is that at almost all political levels, majorities are not guided by ethical principles, but rather by the desire to be happy; most can be made happy by believing comforting lies appealing to their fear, greed, jealousy, hate, or other negative emotions by which they guide their lives. This is why democracy cannot long endure.

No nation in history has ever been closer to being an ideal libertarian society than was the United States during the 24 years that Jefferson and his closest disciples, Madison and Monroe, were President. The major flaw at this time was slavery, which all three of these presidents, as well as John Adams, the previous president, tried to abolish, but could not accomplish politically because of the democratic and bureaucratic structure of the Government. The United States has moved ever further from libertarianism toward increasing authoritarian socialism.

The United States finally ended slavery in 1865, but in the process centralized obscene power in Washington and made the United States less of a libertarian society than ever before. In contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, and the spirit of the early Constitution, since the end of the Civil War, the United States has increasingly become a hierarchy of power, with the most power in the Federal Government, then in the state governments, then in the local governments, and least in the private individual, where the most power was originally supposed to reside. This inverse pyramid of power is the exact opposite of what a libertarian society should be like. A libertarian society can never be produced or even maintained by a democratic system.

There is an ethical alternative to democracy that not only produces a libertarian society as a trivial side effect, but which also produces the freest and most creative society possible. There are several examples of how to structure such a society. The first, and simplest example is to turn the Libertarian party into a libertarian society, which, at this time, it is not, nor has it ever been. The Libertarian party is a democratic society, thus its failure. The Libertarian party is a contradiction in terms. The best way to bring about a Libertarian society is to become a living example of one, instead of being just one more oxymoronic example of a rather unpopular democratic party. A step by step program on how to turn the Libertarian party into a Libertarian society, follows. A detailed rationale for this program is given in my last book(2), which focuses on maximizing individual creativity rather than creating ethical political organizations; however, the latter flows out of the former.

HOW TO MAKE THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY LIBERTARIAN

    1. Stop electing the leaders of the Libertarian party by democratic elections, instead elect them by hierarchical, 100% consensus.
    1. Hierarchical, 100% consensus is established by first organizing Libertarians, at the local level, into small groups, preferably 50% male and 50% female. For example, Lane County, Oregon, where I live, has about 1,000 Libertarian party members, but very few are active. Almost all of them would become active, if they could be politically and practically effective at the local level, even if they might never be effective at the State or National level. My observation from interacting with Libertarians at the local level is that there are many more men than women in the Libertarian party; I suspect that this is true at all Libertarian party levels. In my previous books(2,3), I have shown why it is important to have men and women, in approximately equal numbers, work together to formulate social policy and produce a maximally creative society. Furthermore, the optimal arrangement for maximum creativity in a small group is with four ethical men and four ethical women, integrated into a working group called an “Octet”.
    1. Octets are formed first by having eight Libertarians who know each other and wish to work together, to agree to work together and designate themselves as a Libertarian Octet. If not all the members of the local Libertarian party are integrated into Octets by this voluntary joining, then the remaining Libertarians would be assigned at random into statistically created Octets such that each Octet had an equal percentage of the unassigned women in the local Libertarian party. If there were not enough women to go around, so that each Octet had at least one woman, then women from the voluntary Octets and some of the random Octets could volunteer to participate in more than one Libertarian Octet at the local level, and in effect have more political power, as will soon be shown. This would compensate, within the local Libertarian party, for having too few women. The women who are given this extra political power then compensate for it, by being obligated to actively recruit more women members for the local Libertarian party until the membership is almost equally divided between men and women. If men were in the minority the reverse of this procedure would be practiced.
    1. Each Libertarian Octet agrees to meet at least four hours, once per month to discuss Libertarian party issues among themselves and decide what is the best course of action for them to take as an Octet. Octets do not have to cooperate among themselves, except by 100%, unanimous consensus of all the Octet members. However, they have an obligation to send at least one man and one woman representing the Octet to interact with other male-female pairs of Octet representatives. These representatives then form new Octets by voluntary association with other Octet representatives at a one day local Libertarian convention every three months. My last book, shows how this process can be implemented easily and quickly, even with millions of persons.
    1. The representatives for each Octet are chosen by 100% unanimous consensus of all the members of each Octet. If they cannot achieve 100% consensus, then the Octet will not be represented and have no vote at the next level of political organization. However, in my last book (2) I describe a communication technique called “autopoiesis”, which almost always quickly produces a 100%, consensus on any question which is being addressed by an ethical Octet. (This is a generalization of the biological process of autopoiesis first discovered by Varela and Maturana.(9)) Octets who cannot achieve consensus on who should be their two representatives should restructure themselves with new members with whom they are more compatible and exclude the minority members who are less compatible. The minority Octet members may in turn form new Octets with other local Libertarians with whom they are more compatible. Eventually all Libertarians at the local level will be in Octets with whom they can work harmoniously by 100% unanimous consensus.
    1. At the second level of political organization the new Octets that are formed will in turn discuss Libertarian party issues among themselves and choose, again by 100% unanimous consensus, every six months, a male female pair from the Octet, to represent them at the third level of Libertarian party Organization. Those Octets who cannot achieve consensus, again have no representation at the third level of political organization, but they can reorganize themselves, as before, into new second level Octets.
    1. This process continues until, at the national level, the highest level Octet chooses a male female pair to represent them, every four years. These shall be the next presidential candidates of the Libertarian party. The members of the immediate lower level Octets, who participated in choosing the presidential candidates, shall be the senatorial and gubernatorial candidates of the Libertarian party, within their respective states, by their own hierarchical choice. The representatives of the next lower Octets shall be the House candidates of the Libertarian party. The next lower level Octet representatives shall be the candidates for their respective state legislatures. The next lower level Octet representatives shall be the candidates for county and city governments. All the next lower Octets shall be grass roots workers.
    1. Each member of any Octet who is chosen as a representative must agree to run for the highest office that he or she is qualified for, by 100%, unanimous consensus within the Libertarian party. No one should, in any way, campaign to the be the representative of any Octet, but should always strive to find the best representative other than him or herself. Only when all seven other Octet members choose that person, may the person accept the position or definitely decline it. Persons who seek power, even petty power within the Libertarian party, should never have it.(2) People should serve as representatives from a sense duty rather than a desire for power. No Octet member, at any level, should ever vote for a representative who actively seeks the job.
    1. The power of this process, in lieu of democracy, is that each Octet representative and political candidate has been chosen all along the way by persons who know him or her personally, and the higher the level of the candidate, the more Libertarians have, by 100%, unanimous consensus, chosen that candidate. Each Libertarian has, in a sense, a veto, so that persons obnoxious to him or her will never rise above his or her level in the hierarchy. The presidential candidates are, in a sense, chosen by 100% unanimous consensus of all members of the Libertarian party; this is a much more powerful endorsement than simply a majority of the Libertarian party members voting for someone that few of them know personally, but whom they know solely through his or her speeches, and possibly writings. The quality of the Libertarian candidates are already the highest in the nation; this process will increase candidate quality geometrically.
    1. At the lower levels, the Octet representatives should pay all of their own expenses. As the Octet representatives achieve the higher levels of the Libertarian party they should be entitled to a campaign contribution to run for political office but not for participating in the Octets. Each Libertarian should have an obligation to contribute a minimum of $25 per year to the Libertarian campaign fund or a total of $100 every four years; this is in addition to their regular party dues. If, sometime in the future, there are 500,000 active Libertarian party members in the United States, then the Presidential candidates would receive $25,000,000, the Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates in each state would receive an average of $85,000 each. The House candidates would receive about $6,000 each. The State Government candidates would receive about $3,000 each. The local government candidates would receive about $1,500 each. The campaign funds would be stratified according to the Libertarian population in each state and in each locality; the preceding numbers were averages. Each candidate would, of course, be free to solicit more funds for his or her campaign according to law. This system would enable the Libertarian party to run outstanding candidates for each election in the nation, and to have their voices heard. Although a Libertarian president may never be elected, the presidential candidates of the Libertarian party shall be the major vehicle for informing the American people about Libertarian principles and about the corruption of the current system. Americans will have an alternative, even if they never vote for it. At the local, and perhaps at a few state levels, the Libertarian party will have a good chance of electing some of its best members.
    1. We note that at each level the Octet representative is representing four times as many Libertarians than at the previous level. Therefore, level 1 representatives represent 8 Libertarians; level 2 represent 32 Libertarians, level 3 represent 128 Libertarians, level 4 represent 512 Libertarians, level 5 represent 2,048 Libertarians, level 6 represent 8,192 Libertarians, level 7 represent 32,768 Libertarians, level 8 represent 131,072 Libertarians, and finally level 9 can represent up to 524,288 Libertarians. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, there will not need to be more than nine levels of representation to represent all the active Libertarians in the nation. At level 1, 75% of the total Libertarian population spends only four hours per month creating the consensus hierarchy; those at level 9 have spent only 30 days over a period of four years to reach that level in the consensus hierarchy.
    1. Each level 1 Octet focuses on how best to choose level 2 representatives, raising money for the Libertarian party, and how best to inform their friends and neighbors about the Libertarian party and get them to join it. It would also be worthwhile if the level 1 Octets chose, by 100% unanimous consensus, to engage in creative projects related to Libertarian principles but having to do with local politics, such as defeating all proposed increases in taxes, governmental theft of property rights, or any other government or private threats to personal liberty. Libertarian Octets should engage in creative libertarian projects, such as helping themselves and others to become self-sufficient, avoiding taxes, and circumventing the Government controlled money system through barter. In this way the Octets can serve as an example of how to create self-sufficient libertarian communities on small farms near their homes, which they could purchase and operate as a corporation or as a partnership, with other Octet members having equitable shares in the operation. These suggestions are all in the spirit of the vision that Thomas Jefferson originally had for America. Jefferson’s mistake was political, not conceptual.

There are many other alternatives for creating practical illustrations of libertarian principles in politics, economics, education, health and social organization. Some of these are given in my last book. A libertarian political system would have no parties, but the whole nation would be organized into Octets to produce the workers at all levels of legitimate Government, which would be limited entirely to military, public health, police and judicial functions. A libertarian society would have no bureaucracy, lawyers, or professional judiciary. Each Octet would be sovereign on its own territory; there would be no public lands. Octets who did not wish to pay taxes to support a common defense force, public health organization, or a judiciary consisting entirely of randomly selected neutral Octets, i.e. Octets with no connections to either party, for resolving disputes between Octets, could secede at any time from the libertarian society and go its own way without having to pay for any services it does not want, and will no longer receive. The major reason for a massive nation state is to provide adequate military defense against foreign aggressors. The same can be accomplished by a smaller society that is highly creative and invents superior weapons to those of the large nation states. If foreign aggressors could be eliminated, or if there were enough technological superiority among the Octets, then it would be possible to have a libertarian society which operates entirely on the basis of voluntary cooperation without any need for a central government. Octet consensus hierarchy would exist solely as desired, to accomplish goals not achievable by a single Octet.

The Libertarian party could create a sovereign libertarian society, as a living example of what a libertarian society would be like, within the confines of the United States, by simply concentrating, in rural areas suitable for self-sufficiency, self-employment, and voluntary cooperation, Libertarians who share fundamental ethical values and wish to work together. The libertarian ethic of maximum liberty for all without the diminution of the liberty of any for the alleged benefit of anyone else, is an inadequate ethical base for a maximally creative, progressive society. That is one of the reasons that the United States could not remain a libertarian society. A necessary and sufficient ethical system for creating and keeping a libertarian society, is one based on the notions that the ultimate good is to maximize creativity, and anything that diminishes even a single person’s creativity is an absolute evil, no matter how many other persons are allegedly supposed to be benefited by this “sacrifice”.

Ecological ethics can be seen to be in harmony with the above notions, by recognizing that the only environmental changes that one is entitled to make, including on one’s own property, are those changes that do not decrease the creativity of a single unconsenting person. The environment is best managed to maximize the creativity of all, without diminishing anyone’s creativity.

REFERENCES 1. Bohm, D. & Peat, F.D. Science, Order, and Creativity. New York: Bantam, 1987.

  1. Garcia, John David. Creative Transformation: A Practical Guide for Maximizing Creativity. Box 10851. Eugene, Oregon 97440: Noetic Press, 1991.

  2. Garcia, John David. The Moral Society: A Rational Alternative to Death. Philadelphia: Whitmore Publishing Co., Inc. 1973; New York: Julian Press, 1971.

  3. Garcia, John David. Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy. Philadelphia: Whitmore, 1974.

  4. Plato. The Dialogues of Plato. (2 Vols.). Trans. by B. Jowett. New York: Random House, 1937

  5. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1959

  6. Spinoza, Benedictus de (translation from Latin into English by R.H.M. Elwes) Works of Spinoza. (political and ethical writings) 2 Vols. New York: Dover, 1951.

  7. Spinoza, Benedictus de (translation from Latin into English by Henri Lurié) Ethics. P.O. Box 10851, Eugene, OR 97440: Noetic Press, 1993.

  8. Varela, F.G.; Maturana, H.R.; Uribe, R. “Autopoiesis: The Organization of Living Systems”. Biosystems, Vol. 5, 1974.

© John David Garcia, 1993.

Autopoiesis literally means “auto (self)-creation” (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησιςfor creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in 1973:

“An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.” (Maturana, Varela, 1973, p. 78)

“[…] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.” (Maturana, Varela, 1973, p. 89)

The canonical example of an autopoietic system, and one of the entities that motivated Varela and Maturana to define autopoiesis, is the biological cell. The eukaryotic cell, for example, is made of various biochemical components such as nucleic acids and proteins, and is organized into bounded structures such as the cell nucleus, various organelles, a cell membrane and cytoskeleton. These structures, based on an external flow of molecules and energy, produce the components which, in turn, continue to maintain the organized bounded structure that gives rise to these components. An autopoietic system is to be contrasted with an allopoieticsystem, such as a car factory, which uses raw materials (components) to generate a car (an organized structure) which is something other than itself (a factory).

More generally, the term autopoiesis refers to the dynamics of a non-equilibrium ( or non-equilibrium thermodynamic (NET) (Dyke, Charles, 1988, ch. 9)) system; that is, organized states (sometimes also called dissipative structures) that remain stable for long periods of time despite matter and energy continually flowing through them. A vivid example of such a non-equilibrium structure is the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, which is essentially a gigantic whirlpool of gases in Jupiter’s upper atmosphere. This vortex has persisted for a much longer time (on the order of centuries) than the average amount of time any one gas molecule has spent within it.

From this very general point of view, the notion of autopoiesis is often associated with that of self-organization.

An application of the concept to sociology can be found in the Luhmann’s system theory, while the autopoïetic approach of Limone and Bastias was popularized at the Commercial School of the Catholic University of Valparaiso, starting from the thesis of Aquiles Limone (published in 1977) and model CIBORGA (popularized of 1998) with the collaboration of Luis Bastias, Cardemártori and others.

See also

References & Bibliography

  • Capra, Fritjof (1997). The Web of Life. Random House. ISBN 0385476760 —general introduction to the ideas behind autopoiesis
  • Dyke, Charles (1988). The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Systems: A Study in Biosocial Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Maturana, Humberto & Varela, Francisco ([1st edition 1973] 1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living. Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 42. Dordecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. ISBN 9027710155 (hardback), ISBN 9027710163 (paper) —the main published reference on autopoiesis
  • Mingers, John (1994). Self-Producing Systems. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. ISBN 0306447975 —a book on the autopoiesis concept in many different areas
  • Luisi, Pier L. (2003). Autopoiesis: a review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften 90 49–59. —biologist view of autopoiesis
  • Varela, Francisco J.; Maturana, Humberto R.; & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5 187–196. —one of the original papers on the concept of autopoiesis
  • Luhmann, Niklas (1990). Essays on Self-Reference. Columbia University Press. —Luhmann’s adaptation of autopoiesis to social systems
  • Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores (1990). Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex Pub. Corp. —cognitive systems perspective on autopoiesis
  • Livingston, Ira (2005). Between Science and Literature: An Introduction to Autopoetics. University of Illinois Press. —an adaptation of autpoiesis to language.

External links

http://s3data.computerhistory.org/brochures/teknekroncontrols.admin.1980.102646148.pdf

The Automated Document Management lnformation Network:

Automated lnformation Management

Today’s information manager faces an awesome challenge-how to manage the flood of informa- tion moving through large modern organizations. The information manager must develop a strategy for assuring that professionals can get the information they need, when they need it, where they need it.

Most of the information used by professionals is in the form of images; an executive reviews cor- respondence from another corporation; an engineer uses existing engineering drawings to design a new part; an analyst surveys cost-projections in the form of bar charts and graphs; or a purchasing agent retrieves vendor information for study. In each case the information is in the form of images.

Computers and word processors, on the other hand, use and produce data. These discreet “bits” of electronic information are manipulated by computers with incredible speed and reliability. A total information management system must be able to handle both data and image information.

Consider your paper andlor microform files. If your organization is like most, the information con- tained within your files is primarily image-like. What you need is an image-processing system for your image-like materials, and a data-processing system for indexing your records and maintaining your word-processing files. But you don’t want two systems. You want an integrated datalimage processing system, an Automated Document Management lnformation Network (ADMIN).

Digital Image Retrieval, Storage and Communications

I- FI

The ADMlN System

A total information management system must be tailored to the way your organiza- tion does business. It may include provisions for:

Automated retrieval of information from files

Electronic Mail
Integrated word processing and data processing facilities

A complete indexing and management information system Telecommunications

Simply put, a total information management system should draw on “office of the future” concepts to build an effective, practical system for your organization. TCl’s ADMlN System incorporates all of these elements, plus:

Provides significant return on investment Is modular and expandable

Can interface to existing word processing and other information systems And is available today

The Automated Document Management Information Network : I Electronic Mail 1 lmage Distribution

Document

Optical Disk Writer

TCl’s ADMlN System electronically scans an incoming document and sends the image to you in seconds: Mail can be routed through your organization-from the mailroom to the recipient’s desk-without the delays inherent in processing paper. Professionals continents apart can share an image retrieved automatically from central files. Satellite files and their attendant costs are eliminated. And reports
can be automatically micropublished on a Computer Output Microfilm (COM) device, or published in hard copy on a laser printer.

Imagine what this can mean for your organization in terms of coordination and organizational effectiveness. People can spend less of their time performing clerical tasks, and more time using the organization’s information base creatively. It is the key to increased productivity in the coming decades.

Digital Image Retrieval, Storage and Communications

Large-Document Retrieval and Processing

Engineering draw-
ings, maps, and
geoseismic record
charts are extreme-
ly dense reservoirs
of information. On
a single piece of pa-
per (or aperture card) there may be thousands of indicated relations, dimen- sions, and other data. These valuable records need to be integrated into a cost-effective total information system.

An engineer working on a large project requires immediate access to documen- tation which may be located at facilities across the country. Management coor- dination of these massive projects can only be achieved if the proper informa- tion is at hand. As the scale of our enterprises increase we can only con- tain costs by maximizing the efforts of our professionals. This means that they must have immediate access to the in- formation they need to make proper de- cisions, and that management must have the tools necessary to monitor operations and coordinate efforts taking place in a variety of locations.

"E-Slze Drawlng

TCl’s ADMlN System allows an engineer to automatically retrieve engineering draw- ings at remote locations via a high-resolution video display or hard copy unit. Stored drawings are digitized, transmitted and displayed in a short period of time. He can also search and retrieve vendor files, specifications, index information, or project-tracking data. The system can also be interfaced to an existing Computer-Aided Design system (CAD). The bottom line is reduced costs and increased organizational effectiveness. Pro- fessionals waste less time seeking information. Organizations do more in a limited period of time due to better coordination, and support staff requirements are reduced.

@AMcD @Leo @jenlake

Garcia worked as a mathematical modeler in chemical, biological, and radiological warfare strategies.

John Garcia in 1970

John David Garcia

Jump to:navigation, search

John David Garcia
Born 25 March 1935 March 25, 1935, in
San Francisco, California
:skull:Died 17 March 2001 (aged 65)
Springfield, Oregon, USA17 March 2001 (aged 65)

:white_flag: Nationality American

:mortar_board: Alma mater * UC Berkeley; University of Chicago; Johns Hopkins University
:briefcase: Occupation

Creativity “Creative Transformation”
Founder of Society for Evolutionary Ethics
Electronic Signature Lock
Mathematical and Game Theories

:medal_sports: Awards The New York Times Best Seller list

John David Garcia (1936-2001) was a best-selling American author.[1], important inventor[2], successful entrepreneur[3], and moral protagonist.[4]

Contents

Career[edit]

After completing his B.A.s in Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology at UC Berkeley, and his M.A.s in Applied Mathematics and Statistics and Physics at the University of Chicago[5], Garcia entered the U.S. Army to work as a mathematical modeler in chemical, biological, and radiological warfare strategies. Afterwards, he completed his graduate work at Johns Hopkins University where he focused on Mathematical Simulations and Design of Experiments in Biomedicine and Social Sciences. In 1968 (while teaching and working at UC Berkeley), he joined with Harvey Wagner and a few other UC Berkeley professors to found Teknekron Corporation, one of the world’s first technology-focused business incubators. Subsequently, under NSF National Science Foundation sponsorship and grants, he invented the Electronic Signature Lock[6][7] and other Biometric Techniques for computer data and access security (U.S. Patent #4621334) [8]. Then he invented a “Demand Activated Road Transit System”[9], a computer dispatching system still used for group riding “taxis” and mass-transit systems[10]. In 1970, he severed ties to his technical, scientific, and entrepreneurial endeavors to concentrate on writing and other “evolutionary” pursuits.

The Society for Evolutionary Ethics[edit]

Garcia wrote his first book “The Moral Society: A Rational Alternative to Death” in 1970. It became the cornerstone for Garcia’s work over the next quarter-century. Arguing that our current path(s)[11][12][13] would all lead to eventual extinction of the human species, Garcia proposed that our only choice to avoid extinction is to become fully aware[14] of our total environment so that we could grasp how the evolution of ethics (per Baruch Spinoza) lights the way to our creative potential[15]. With that potential we would take control of the evolutionary process to self-create our next moral state (a "moral society’)[16]. He described that process as “autopoiesis” following the model proposed by Teilhard de Chardin in “The Phenomenon of Man”[17]. “For a more concrete vision in the same spirit, see J. D. Garcia, The Moral Society, New York: Julian Press, 1971”[18]

While “The Moral Society” was publicized by Warren Adler[19] and was well received in the scientific community [20] it was not widely popular as it “was too complex and abstract for most people”[21]. Garcia was disappointed that it was not understood, or more often “grossly misunderstood, even by people who seemed to appreciate it”[22]. Thus, he set out to write a different type of book with more directed focus and simplified concepts - “Psychofraud and Ethical Therapy”. It was an immediate success and made the New York Times “Best Seller List” in 1974[23]. Garcia would spend “the next fifteen years trying to help others understand both my books”.

Garcia began selecting experimental and control groups using the criteria he offered for “Ethical Therapy”:

  1. Persons who are both highly specialized and highly intelligent are likely to be unethical and as a consequence, neurotic.
  2. Highly generalized persons with some depth of knowledge in at least two important, but distinct, subjects are likely to be ethical, irrespective of their intelligence. However, the lower their intelligence for a given amount of knowledge, the more ethical they are likely to be.
  3. Intelligent but ignorant persons who have had educational opportunities but failed to use them are likely to be unethical.
  4. Persons who are both ignorant and of low intelligence may or may not be ethical.
  5. Persons who are highly generalized but have no depth in any area are probably ethical if they are of low intelligence, and probably unethical if they are of high intelligence.

(These criteria provide an glimpse into Garcia’s bluntness that some found off-putting). The “experimentation” with groups would become a prominent factor in the rest of Garcia’s life.

The School of Experimental Ecology[edit]

In the early 1980s, Garcia became increasingly concerned with American political corruption and global environmental destruction. He decided to move from Maryland to Oregon and start a new “SEE” organization focused on education and ecology. With fellow “protagonists” who were also investors (e.g. Guillermo Rivera Sanchez, Steve Watts, and Rich Van Winkle) Garcia purchased a 545 acre property near Elkton, Oregon and opened the “School of Experimental Ecology”[24]. The school attracted writers, artists, scientists, and followers from around the world who were dedicated to advancing the evolutionary ethic - “the sole ultimate ethical goal in the universe that does not lead to its own contradiction”:[25].

  1. Any act which increases anyone’s creativity, including our own, without decreasing anyone else’s creativity, including our own, is ethical. (This is the essence of the meaning of “good.” To be “good” is to knowingly and deliberately behave ethically, whatever the consequences.)
  2. Any act which decreases anyone’s creativity is unethical. (This is the essence of the meaning of “evil.” To be “evil” is to knowingly and deliberately behave unethically, for whatever reason.)
  3. Unethical means can never achieve ethical ends.
  4. Means which are not ends are never ethical.
  5. It is unethical to tolerate unethical or destructive behavior.
  6. It is unethical to be certain about any cause and effect relationship concerning objective reality; only probabilistic beliefs about objective reality are ethical, but we can never deny the reality of our own thoughts or perceptions, our subjective reality; we err solely when we are certain about the causes in objective reality of our subjective thoughts or perceptions.
  7. It is ethical to doubt.
  8. Inaction is unethical.

Because the school was structured as a self-sustaining ecological and business enterprise, it was required to meet local “planning” requirements to operate. But local political opposition arose due to recent events at Rajneeshpuram in central Oregon as local residents feared anything resembling “outsiders” setting up strange sounding new operations. Garcia’s strong secular focus also brought opposition from local Christian groups. The net result was prolonged delays in gaining necessary permits such that the school was forced to close.

The Quantum Ark, Sufism, Octets, and Complementary Pairs[edit]

Once the School of Experimental Ecology closed, Garcia moved to Fall Creek, Oregon and began working on his next book: “Creative Transformation” (as below). He became interested in Sufism and invented the “Quantum Ark”. Working from David Bohm’s “Implicate Order” Implicate order and explicate order, Garcia proposed that the human brain functioned as a quantum [interfacing] device that communicates information outside of spacetime and he designed and experimented with a “Quantum Ark” attempting (without clear success) to interface with “higher order information systems”[26]

Garcia had been experimenting with creativity enhancement methods and concluded that "men and women are neurologically, as well as sexually, complementary to one another…: and that decisions at all levels “are better made by consensus between at least one man and at least one woman, who share a common set of true ethical values, and voluntarily choose to work together… ‘a Complementary Pair’… The most creative interactions between Complementary Pairs are achieved within Octets” optimally comprised of 4 men and 4 women. This method became the primary focus of “Creative Transformation”.

After completion of “Creative Transformation” (1991), Garcia became increasingly involved in politics, particularly within the Libertarian Party in the State of Oregon.

Politics, Practices, and Poor Health[edit]

In 1991, Garcia gave a speech before the Libertarian Party in Eugene, Oregon titled “The Incompatibility between Libertarianism and Democracy” which included these ideas[27]: “Democratic authority, no matter how virtuous and well intentioned it originally was, becomes corrupted because professional politicians quickly learn that the easiest way to get elected is to openly share the fears and prejudices of the electoral majority… Spinoza rejected democracy because it was destructive to individual liberty, which was essential to maximize creativity. Spinoza said that democracy always leads to the imposition of the will of the majority on minorities, and that this was unethical, because the destruction of freedom also destroys creativity [cites omitted]… Bertrand Russell [said] all democracies eventually become so corrupt that ‘only persons who are hypocritical, stupid, or both can be elected to public office’.” Suffice it to say that Garcia’s political views alienated some.

Along with his political views, Garcia’s personal practices were sometimes difficult to understand and he often had difficulty understanding the values and beliefs of others. As an example of this, John had married into a Jewish family and his wife (Bernice) valued her religion. But, after he had met a Sufi woman with whom he became close, he began to espouse the virtues of Sufism (which are typically offensive or contrary to Jews). This is relevant here because towards the end of 1992, with failing health, Garcia became depressed, writing: “I had failed to help anyone else enter the Ethical State, including my own family. If I could not create an Ethical State for others, then my life was truly meaningless, and all I had learned and done would die with my life… I felt I had lived long enough; it was time to make room for others to create an Ethical State; it seemed that I… was probably at the stage in life when the most creative thing I could do was to die.” However, Garcia had committed to teach more workshops and classes in Mexico City (Nov. 1992-Feb. 1993), including teaching a graduate course at Universidad Iberoamericana. There he met two remarkable women who helped turn things around - particularly since one was a medical doctor. Garcia imagined a new process which might yield an ethical state - “Dyadic Autopoiesis”. He coupled that with chakras and complementary pairing in an effort to produce creative transformation. Such was his practice until health issues became dominant.

In the last years of his life, Garcia focused on his “fourth economic paradigm” to spend his remaining time learning, creating, and teaching the new Creative Transformation process. He found more southerly audiences extra receptive to this messaging and he spent more time in Mexico and Chile through 1994. He continued to experiment with groups (including Irwin Yeroham) while again trying to build a self-sufficient “farm” in Chile. That didn’t work out and although he sold his interests there at a profit, the deal resulted in some economic problems in Chile (and substantial distrust in financial dealing with Chileans). Garcia moved to Mexico in 1999 but received faulty medical care and almost died. He returned to the U.S. and got proper medical care which allowed him to return to his work - especially writing his final book “The Ethical State”[28]. He also worked with his long-time friend and publisher, Tony Parrotto, in a commercial enterprise.

Books[edit]

Creative Transformation Cover

(All available for free download with publishers consent)

Essays and Other Works[edit]

(All available for free download) John David Garcia was an avid and prolific writer whose work emphasized quality over quantity. However, his focus was narrow and most of his writings have a common core: his life-long desire to teach others how to maximize creativity. Because that is the focus of his books, the essay excerpts selected here deal with more diverse subjects.

  1. “Ethics, Creativity, and Judaism” (1996): "At the core of any civilization is a system of values or ethics together with assumptions about reality… Spinoza was the first scientific philosopher of ethics… the first to integrate ethics with mathematically based modern science… Spinoza said that the ultimate good was what he called “the intellectual love of God… we understand God through intuition, science and technology, since God is the infinite totality of all that exists.” "The most outstanding attribute of God is creativity. Therefore, we emulate God by maximizing creativity.
  2. THEOREM 1: People are unethical if, and only if, they value happiness more than creativity.
  3. THEOREM 2: If we seek to maximize happiness, we minimize it and have neither happiness nor creativity.
  4. THEOREM 3: If we seek to maximize creativity, we always succeed, and trivially also maximize happiness.
  5. THEOREM 4: Humans have solely two primordial desires, happiness and creativity; all other desires are means for achieving the two primordial desires; by maximizing creativity with no concern for happiness we maximize both happiness and creativity.

Therefore, there exists a single ethical criterion by which all ethical decisions may be made, which is valid under all conditions for all ethical beings anywhere in the universe… the ‘Evolutionary Ethic’." “Jews are, relative to their numbers by far, the most creative people on earth.” [Examples].“As a young man I considered mysticism a form of pathological self-deception, in which people, in order to be happy, choose to deceive themselves increasingly more…[but as] I grew older I noticed that the most creative scientists known to me tended to be highly mystical, e.g. Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Pauli, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Jeans, Edington, and more recently David Bohm and Fred Hoyle, among many others.” "The universe has an ethical structure to it… [with] at least one intelligence superior to humanity’s which is, at least in part, responsible for the ethical structure of the universe… There are many specific ways of communicating with the higher intelligence of ethical order… [and] behaving ethically enhances this communication.

  1. Religion, Superstition, and Spirituality (1993): “True spirituality, or what Constantin Brunner might have called Geistigkeit in lieu of Geist-lichkeit, is based on dedication to truth and creativity… The true spiritual, or Esprital, as Henri Lurié might say, is prepared to stand alone[30]…The last 24 years of my life have been spent in learning how to identify Espritals and organize them in such a way that they can all maximize their creativity… My findings are that this will occur only in small groups of 8-10, ethical, cooperative, free men and women… A very small minority of humanity has the innate courage and ethics, as well as the fortunate environment, to remain ethical in the face of constant punishment, threats, and loneliness. Almost everyone ultimately succumbs to superstitious conformity and surrenders to their own fear.” “Espiritals… courageously choose to work in the environment which maximizes creativity, rather in the environment which maximizes income, or even gives them minimum security… [and] will try to make themselves, and all those they love, as self-sufficient as possible.”
  2. “The Fundamental Pattern of Nature” (1987): Theorem 1: All major quadratures occur when a new order of autopoeises is established by a new hierarchy of four complementary pairs of intelligences belonging to the preceeding lower hierarchy… “Therefore, in order to produce a moral person we need a new order of autopoiesis so that we can produce a person whose intelligence is not dependent on the non-neocortical parts of the brain. A process for doing this is indicated by inductive extrapolation from the basic pattern of major quadratures in evolution. We begin by noting that apparently all major quadratures go by quantum leaps of four complementary pairs of lower level intelligences to create a new higher level of autopoietic intelligence.” “Garcia made the assertion that the universe is a holographic quantum mechanical phenomenon and that the human brain is a quantum mechanical machine. He further asserted that the human brain can reach out into the quantum universe and find new information (new to the finder).”[31]

Personal Life[edit]

John David Garcia was the son of Esperanza Phelan and Jose Trinidad Garcia. He married Bernice Posman in San Francisco on July 10, 1959 and they had four daughters: Miriam Garcia of Oregon, Karen Garcia of California, (“Jackie”) E. Jaqueline Mann of California, and Laura Darrensburg of Nevada.

His final journal entry read: “My life is going well, as my health improves.” (March of 2000). John passed in the company of his family on 23 November, 2001 from complications of diabetes. He was 66.

See also[edit]

• American philosophy • List of American philosophers • Omega Point • Good and Evil

References[edit]

  1. https://www.titanians.org/john-david-garcia/
  2. “Inventions created by John David Garcia have had sales in excess of one billion dollars.” Creative Transformation - Appendix
  3. “The founder, chairman of the board, and president of a fast-growing, highly creative engineering company that was destined to earn hundreds of millions of dollars.” THE NEW SYNTHESIS
  4. john david garcia : définition de john david garcia et synonymes de john david garcia (anglais)
  5. Two views of our evolutionary destiny - The Economic Times
  6. US4621334A - Personal identification apparatus - Google Patents
  7. Patents Assigned to Electronic Signature Lock Corporation - Justia Patents Search
  8. “United States Patent 4621334″
  9. “Directory of Research, Development & Demonstration Projects”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration (1970), p. CRI-4, Spec. I.4.3
  10. “Personality facets and ethics positions as directives for self-driving vehicles” by Brent Smith Technology in Society November 2018 DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.006
  11. Social, political, religious, economic, environmental, and ethical.
  12. "Garcia’s view that in culture hedonism, fun and excitement receive the highest credit. He explains hedonism is: “A sense of values which gives the highest value to pleasure and happiness. Hedonism represents the pursuit of happiness to the exclusion of awareness.” “Hedonism Culture and Background from the Perspective Members of Philosophy” (Concept of the Culture of Hedonism Topics and its Background from the Perspective of the Greek Philosophers and Modern Western Philosophers” by Halipah Hamzah, Muhammmad Azizan Sabjan, and Noor Shakirah Mat End, Journal of al-Tamaddun No. 11 (1) 2016, pp. 49-58 citing John David Garcia, The Moral Society, The Julian Press Inc., New York, 1971, p. 330.
  13. See also “Budaya Hedonisme dan Cabarannya” by Halipah Hamzah, Esteem Academic Journal Vol. 6, No. 2, 2010, p. 85: Definisi kedua ini bertepatan dengan pandangan yang menyatakan bahawa dalam budaya hedonisme, keseronokan dan kegembiraan menerima kredit tertinggi. Hedonisme menurut pandangan beliau ialah…" citing “The Moral Society”
  14. "Lifelong Learning: A Human Agenda” Ed. by Overly, Norman V., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va. (1979), pp. 145-46 citing John David Garcia, “The Moral Society”, Julian Press, 1971. pp. 50-51.
  15. See “Human Goals and Science Policy” by R. W. Jackson, Science Council of Canada, 1976 p.30: “[E]ntering from a base of science, John David Garcia, questioned the values of Western civilization and placed himself alongside Teilhard de Chardin in postulating the evolution of consciousness, or “awareness” as the ultimate goal.”
  16. “John Garcia, in his The Moral Society, penned a Teilhardian-conceptualized theory wherein he theorized about peace entropically; the following being an example section:'The evolutionary force driving man toward ever-greater mind causes him to seek ever-greater awareness.” Hmolpedics “Peace” at http://www.eoht.info/page/peace citing The Moral Society
  17. Teilhard viewed evolution as a process that leads to increasing complexity and human evolution as “evolution becoming conscious of itself”. He saw the evolutionary emergence of our thinking as creating a field enveloping the earth - the “noosphere” (the collective consciousness of humanity, the networks of thought and emotion in which all are interconnected) - and the noosphere as requiring a new level of psychical expansion (which “is staring us in the face if we would only raise our heads to look at it”). Teilhard proposed that we extend to this potential to reach supreme consciousness - the “Omega Point”. See “The Phenomenon of Man (Le phénomène humain)” by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Harper Perennial, NY (1955), various - available for free at The Phenomenon of Man : Pierre Teilhard de Chardin : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
  18. “Preferred Images of the Future” by David W. Livingstone and Donald G. Lake, McGill Journal of Education, Spring 1977 Vol. XII No.1, pp. 97-98
  19. “John David Garcia, had written a brilliant book titled The Moral Society…” from “Undertow” (Starting My Writing Career) at https://www.amazon.com/Undertow-Warren-Adler/dp/1532981902. Adler dedicated his book “Banquet Before Dawn” to Garcia.
  20. “… an original and penetrating book written by a man of strangely heroic cast of mind. I have found much in the remarkable work by John David Garcia which gives philosophical direction to our times." HUMBERTO FERNANDEZ-MORAN, Professor of Biophysics, University of Chicago.
  21. Garcia in “The Ethical State”
  22. ibid
  23. “Psychofraud characterizes all models (not forms) of human behavior which lack a scientific basis, however decent or well intentioned they may seem.” Marcus Rosenblum, FAPIIA, AJPH FEBRUARY. 1975. Vol.65, No. 2 at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/
  24. From personal notes of Rich Van Winkle (contributor to this article).
  25. “The Ethical State: An Essay on Political Ethics” by John David Garcia, Wexford College Press (2003), p. p-2
  26. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220393527_Formal_Topology_and_Information_Systems
  27. From the essay written after the speech: Incompatibility between Libertarianism and Democracy
  28. See “Can Government Regulate Technology?” by Edmund Byrne in “Philosophy and Technology”, Ed. by P.T. Durbin, F. Rapp, Springer Science & Business Media (2012), p.26
  29. “Revolutionary, operational ethical theory much in the spirit of Spinoza & Teilhard de Chardin; unified every facet of the human experience, evolution & sociopolitical action.” Daily Vidette, Vol. 85 No. 42, Illinois State University Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, Dec. 6, 1972, p. 2.
  30. Brunner, Constantin: Spinoza contre Kant et la cause de la vérité spirituelle. Traduit et précédé d’un avant propos par Henri Lurié. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1932)
  31. “The Ethics of Intellectual Property: About Property Rights” By Robert Podolsky (2011) at https://www.titanians.org/ethics-of-intellectual-property/
1 Like

John David Garcia co-founded Teknekron . . .

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/teknekron-corporation
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0714129D:US

https://www.sgpbusiness.com/company/Teknekron-Software-Systems-Inc

https://bizapps.wiki/index.php?title=Vivek_Ranadivé

With a prototype TIB under construction, Ranadivé put his business degree from Harvard to use and sought start-up capital in northern California. He received seed capital from Teknekron Corp in 1985 and Teknekron Software Systems Inc. (TSS) was born. Ranadivé turned to faculty at MIT and hired talented staff from nearby Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley.

TSS found initial success creating software infrastructure that integrated and delivered market data to trading rooms at Goldman Sachs and then many large banks and other financial organizations. Teknekron created the “trading floor of the future,” eventually digitizing all of Wall Street.

https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/teknekron-controls-incorporated-254310/

https://www.liquisearch.com/tibco_software/history/beginnings_and_teknekron

https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Faculty/Homepages/turin.html

George L. Turin

Former Professor Emeritus

Biography

George Turin was born in New York City on January 27, 1930. He graduated from the Bronx High School of Science in 1947, then received the S.B. (1951), S.M. (1952) and Sc.D. (1956) degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

His professional career mixed a presence in industry with one in academia.

From 1952-56 he worked at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory in Lexington, MA, while getting his Sc.D. From 1956-60 he was a staff member of the Hughes Research Laboratories, Culver City and Malibu, CA. He joined the EECS Department as a faculty member in 1960, where he performed research in communication theory and systems, communication networks, and urban radio communication. He served as department chair from 1980 - 1983. He left UC Berkeley briefly for UCLA, and served there as Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

He also served as Vice President, Technology, of Teknekron Corporation, a Bay Area firm he helped found in 1968. Teknekron specialized in starting high-technology firms with close links to researchers in universities and other research institutions. He also served as a consultant to numerous industrial and government organizations.

He was a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fellow of the British Science and Engineering Research Council, and was a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He served as a trustee of the College Preparatory School of Oakland, CA, and on the Board of Tenera Corporation.

Prof. Turin retired from UC Berkeley in 1990, and passed away in March 2014.

Selected Publications

Awards, Memberships and Fellowships

1 Like

Biosphere 2 - 8 people.
Eight People Attempted To Live In A Biosphere For Two Years – Then It All Went Wrong | IFLScience.

Funded by a guy in Texas. Edward Bass - @ldaven

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/04/03/biosphere-2-managers-ousted-in-raid/3c9d06f0-fe3a-4573-b05a-15818390f391/

Texas oil billionaire Edward P. Bass apparently became fed up with the management group’s policies – not to mention the failure of managers to listen to him – and he arranged for federal marshals to breeze into the project’s offices at Oracle, Ariz., and order them out.

1 Like

Hey @laven about that Teknekron company mentioned above.

The company is registered in the tax shelter of Incline Village in Nevada. Although Wagner had a small office there near his Lake Tahoe house,[2] most of the company’s operations are in Berkeley, the San Francisco Peninsula, and the Dallas–Fort Worth area.

Something about the name @stephers calls to mind the Foundation of the Long Now and Bezos’s West Texas mountain clock.

1 Like

Harvey E. Wagner, beloved husband, father, grandfather, and friend passed away peacefully on March 9th, 2022 of pancreatic cancer.

Born in 1936 to immigrant parents in Philadelphia and raised in Washington D.C., he showed a precocious talent for mathematics, graduating high school at 15. Harvey received a B.S. in engineering from Lehigh University. He received a master’s degree in Operations Research, the Artificial Intelligence of it’s time, from Carnegie Mellon.

After graduate school Harvey worked at a variety of jobs in his field, earning enough money to start off sailing around the world on a 36-foot trimaran. Those who knew Harvey well were entertained with funny and terrifying stories of that adventure.

In 1968 Harvey founded Teknekron Corporation in Berkeley California, which developed and incubated emerging technologies in computer science. The business model was that of guided entrepreneurship and the company took academic advances from universities successfully to marketplace. His unique ability to understand new technologies combined with his business acumen made Teknekron a pioneer in its field.

In the late 70’s Harvey moved to the Lake Tahoe area. Through his lifetime he supported innovation in technology, education, and the arts. His legacy lives on through an endowed chair at Lehigh University focusing on industrial and systems engineering. He also was a major supporter of the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. In 2018, he endowed a chair at the University of California at Berkeley focusing on artificial intelligence. Harvey has made a profound difference in the lives of so many individuals with his sage advice and generosity. He was an intensely private person who never wished for accolades or fame.

Bass-ackwards! I forgot about him funding that creepy biosphere.

1 Like

Transferring this thread over from the Severance post – as it relates directly to John Bush of the Freedom Cell Network . . .

AMcD

@stehers - 2/3 of the way through the second episode Hellie askes what they are really doing with the numbers and her co-worker replies - cleaning the ocean - for sea steading. That is Patri Friedman’s deal with Palantir and John Bush.

Reply

Stephers

Great catch.

en.wikipedia.org

Seasteading

Seasteading is the concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called seasteads, in international waters outside the territory claimed by any government. No one has yet created a structure on the high seas that has been recognized as a sovereign state. Proposed structures have included modified cruise ships, refitted oil platforms, and custom-built floating islands. Proponents say seasteads can "provide the means for rapid innovation in voluntary governance and reverse environmental damag…

NBC News

A good time to live on the ocean? ‘Seasteaders’ double down during pandemic

The seasteading community has for years pushed the idea that living in independent, human-made communities on the ocean is the way to move society forward.

en.wikipedia.org

Patri Friedman

Patri Friedman (born July 29, 1976) is an American libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and theorist of political economy. He founded The Seasteading Institute, a non-profit that explores the creation of sovereign ocean colonies. Named after family friend Patri Pugliese, Friedman grew up in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a graduate of Upper Merion Area High School, class of 1994, where he went by the name Patri Forwalter-Friedman. He graduated from Harvey Mudd College in 1998, and went on t…

en.wikipedia.org

David D. Friedman

David Director Friedman (born February 12, 1945) is an American economist, physicist, legal scholar, and anarcho-capitalist theorist, described by Walter Block as a “free-market anarchist”. Although he studied chemistry and physics and not law or economics, he is known for his textbook writings on microeconomics and the libertarian theory of anarcho-capitalism, which is the subject of his most popular book, The Machinery of Freedom. He has also authored several other books and articles, inc David…

en.wikipedia.org

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman (/ˈfriːdmən/ (listen); July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006) was an American economist and statistician who received the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his research on consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and the complexity of stabilization policy. With George Stigler and others, Friedman was among the intellectual leaders of the Chicago school of economics, a neoclassical school of economic thought associated with the work of the faculty at the Un

the Guardian – 7 Sep 21

The disastrous voyage of Satoshi, the world’s first cryptocurrency cruise ship

The long read: Last year, three cryptocurrency enthusiasts bought a cruise ship. They named it the Satoshi, and dreamed of starting a floating libertarian utopia. It didn’t work out

On the evening of 7 December 2010, in a hushed San Francisco auditorium, former Google engineer Patri Friedman sketched out the future of humanity. The event was hosted by the Thiel Foundation, established four years earlier by the arch-libertarian PayPal founder Peter Thiel to “defend and promote freedom in all its dimensions”. From behind a large lectern, Friedman – grandson of Milton Friedman, one of the most influential free-market economists of the last century – laid out his plan. He wanted to transform how and where we live, to abandon life on land and all our decrepit assumptions about the nature of society. He wanted, quite simply, to start a new city in the middle of the ocean.

Friedman called it seasteading: “Homesteading the high seas,” a phrase borrowed from Wayne Gramlich, a software engineer with whom he’d founded the Seasteading Institute in 2008, helped by a $500,000 donation from Thiel.

The Seasteading Institute

The Seasteading Institute

Opening humanity\'s next frontier

The Seasteading Institute

Patri Friedman

Opening humanity’s next frontier

https://angel.co/patris-personal/syndicate

The Seasteading Institute – 23 Mar 21

Governance Part 1 Social

Join seasteading enthusiasts around the world for our first Seasteading Social about possible Governance Structures for seasteads. (The second part of this discussion will take place May 8.) (details below) Event Host John…

Event Host

John Bush

John Bush is a radical activist, entrepreneur, and father of two based in Austin, TX. Since 2002 he has worked tirelessly to create a more free and peaceful world through political activism and the promotion of alternative institutions like cryptocurrencies and decentralized systems of social organization. He is a proponent of health freedom and operates Brave Botanicals which offers kratom, CBD, Delta 8 THC and other natural medicines. In 2015 he laid out his vision for Freedom Cells, small mutual aid groups networked with other cells to achieve common goals and secure the sovereignty of group members. The Freedom Cell Network has since grown to over 19,000 people across the world and hopes to one day replace the state as a means of social organization.


Any chance John Bush is related to mathematician/topologist/data scientist Justin Bush of Palantir (now at Komodo Health)?

The Data Incubator – 28 Feb 15

Moving to Palantir from Mathematics: Alumni Spotlight on Justin Bush - The…

We love Fellows with diverse academic backgrounds that go beyond what companies traditionally think of when hiring Data Scientists. Justin was a Fellow in our second cohort who landed a job with one of our hiring partners, Palantir. Tell us about…

https://www.linkedin.com/in/justincbush

1 Like

Similar to a mutual aid or benefit society, a Freedom Cell is a network of individuals who share a common understanding of the requirements to bring about a free society. The purpose is to work together and bring those requirements into reality in their own lives and the communities in which they live.

From the Freedom Cell Network:

“Freedom Cells are peer to peer groups organizing themselves in a decentralized manner with the collective goal of asserting the sovereignty of group members through peaceful resistance and the creation of alternative institutions.”

The concept of a Freedom Cell is something I’ve been planning and starting to create in my local area, Salt Lake City, UT.

I’m reaching out with the Truth, Freedom, Prosperity – Salt Lake City (TFP SLC) to establish a core network of individuals. I’ll touch on some concepts here which I feel can act as a strong foothold to bring this forward.

If you’re interested in joining the TFP -SLC, contact me here to get started. Even if you will be starting your own freedom cell, we can still work together in the Salt Lake Freedom Hive which can be used as a central hub for the local freedom cells to collaborate when necessary.

If you are in the local area and have ongoing projects or future projects which are related to the activities of the Salt Lake Freedom Hive, please contact me and we can start to organize.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― R. Buckminster Fuller

My personal interest in this concept has lead me to this point. To the point of having a launch pad for which I can start to see some of these concepts manifest themselves in my life and the community around me.

However, this is not a rally cry to convert the masses to “our movement” or start a meetup group to protest at capitol hill once a year. Far from being a social club, the Freedom Cell concept is for individuals who have already gone through the process of freeing themselves mentally from the controls of the state. Seeking to incorporate real world solutions which I’ll help to identify in this article.

To decentralize down to the individual level. The aim of the Freedom Cell is to empower individuals and provide support for this newly found freedom.

The goal is to make the state irrelevant. Ultimately, we can prove that voluntary exchange among consenting individuals is superior to the force of the state.

I’ll be honest, working in groups, especially large groups, makes me cringe. I prefer to work alone and find that autodidactism is the most empowering way of learning and taking on new projects in life.

However, there are structures of working groups that I do see as valuable. Small groups, very small, under ten people preferably. If the freedom cell grows beyond this, it can then divide and spawn a new group. These groups can work together when necessary, but in order to keep the groups small, they can continue dividing as necessary.

Bob Podolsky, a founding member of Titania, a “non hierarchical society dedicated to peace, love and truth; through ethics and creativity and utilizing the organizational principles” promotes this small groups concept.

The concept Bob and his team uses is an Octolog (a group of 8) in a decentralized structure, a Holomat(holotropic matrix). This way of organizing is decentralized, non-hierarchical, completely voluntary and has no leader or someone with more control or power than anyone else in the structure.

Check out this interview with Bob by Jeff Berwick: Anarchast Ep.239 Bob Podolsky: Ethics and the Titania Project!

Find more here on Octologues and Holomats here. I’ve listed some explanation below:

An Octologue is a small group of people (typically 8) who have undertaken to act together on a voluntary basis for the pursuit of an ethical purpose. Such a group makes unanimous decisions and also acts as a mutual feedback hub, whereby the members share their perceptions of one another in a very personal and intimate manner.

A HoloMat (generic term) is a group of Octologues joined by an ethical contract to serve a shared purpose. A HoloMat may consist of any number of Octologues.

The HOLOMAT is an online hub and resource center for many HoloMats to communicate with one another and to coordinate related activities for mutual advantage. When built, the HOLOMAT website/application will facilitate many kinds of interactions between individuals, Octologues, and HoloMats, and will provide for a wide range of memberships tailored to the needs of the individual or group. It will also act as a mechanism whereby individuals and groups will be able to find one another – e.g. Octologues seeking people with particular skills, or people looking for Octologues having specific purposes.


If we are to succeed in decentralizing down to the individual, this way of building the foundation of the structure is absolutely required. We cannot build societies based on the violence and slavery of the state and expect not to get violence and slavery in return. Only individuals who understands their rights and their sovereignty can create free society.

Within these small cells, basic skills for working in this type of structure can be shared amongst individuals. We will be archiving this information here in the Freedom Hive along the way. We will document our journey and struggles with this projects and help to empower future freedom minded individuals. We can blaze the pathway for new generations to have a stronger foothold to climb the mountain towards a free society.

I would like to get 8 to 10 members together all working on projects that the groups agrees to. Once more people come along to join us, we will encourage them to start their own Freedom Cell and we will collaborate when necessary.

This keeps the groups small and focused rather than bloated and confused. If the cells need to work together on larger goals, then they can do so when necessary. Otherwise, weekly or monthly meetings should be held only by the core 8-10 members to focus on next steps in projects and future goals.

The Salt Lake Freedom Hive plans to begin working with other members on these concepts. I’m excited for this next chapter in my own journey towards more personal freedom.

A few examples of upcoming projects at TFP – SLC:

  • Used in case of particular emergencies
  • Skill sharing
  • Unschooling meetup and support network’s
  • Food Storage awareness and preparation
  • Encrypted Communication
  • Acquiring Land to purpose for large scale projects
  • Building Agoras to bring truly free markets to our local communities
  • Defense, Self-Defense training and preparation
  • Legal Defense guidance and education
  • Aid, providing resources to the community and individuals within who are in need of assistance
  • Black Market / Grey Market, Private Transactions, Alternative Currency (Cryptocurrency, community dollars, etc) use and promotion
  • Organizing for Medical Freedom in our local area.
  • Personal and Community Gardening, Permaculture Techniques. It’s almost time to start planting those vegetable seeds indoors to prepare for the growing season here in Utah!
  • More to come……

I plan to document this journey the Freedom Hive blog, so stay tuned for upcoming posts, videos, photos and blog posts on our progress.


Resources for an Introduction into Freedom Cells and/or Free Societies:

There are many more resources available. I just wanted to start with that short list. This site will eventually be host to many resources in this vein and we always encourage you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

1 Like

Emerald green, interesting! So many of my fellow creatures falling for this Charlatan and his friends!

CBD industrial complex. CBD the new snake oil! We need to be careful that we do not fall for yet another form of so called alternative medicine that resembles little of how it was originally used. Just saying!

1 Like

Rose Friedman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Rose Friedman
Tom Skinner - Rose Friedman Headshot.jpg220x339

Friedman in 2004
Born December 1910

Staryi Chortoryisk,
Volhynian Governorate, Russian Empire (present-day Ukraine)
Died August 18, 2009 (aged 98)

Davis, California, U.S.
Other names Rose D. Friedman, Rose Director
Alma mater Reed College
University of Chicago
Occupation Economist
Spouse Milton Friedman
Children David D. Friedman
Jan Martel

Rose Director Friedman (/dɪˈrɛktər ˈfriːdmən/; born Rose Director (December 1910 – 18 August 2009), was a free-market economist and co-founder of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.[1][2]

Biography[edit]

Rose Friedman attended Reed College and then transferred to the University of Chicago, where she received a Bachelor of Philosophy degree. After this she began to study for a doctorate in economics at the University of Chicago and completed all work necessary for the Ph.D. except for writing the dissertation. In her youth, she wrote articles with Dorothy Brady on consumption. She received an honorary LL.D. in December 1986 from Pepperdine University. She is believed to have been born the last week of December, 1910; however, the birth records have been lost. She was born in Staryi Chortoryisk, in Ukraine, to the Director family, prominent Jewish residents.

She was married to her frequent collaborator, Milton Friedman (1912–2006), who won the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics. Her brother, Aaron Director (1901–2004), was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and one of the founders of the economic analysis of law.

External video
video icon16x16 Presentation by Milton and Rose Friedman on Two Lucky People: Memoirs, August 14, 1998, C-SPAN

With Milton, she co-wrote two books on economics and public policy, Free to Choose and Tyranny of the Status Quo, and their memoirs Two Lucky People, which appeared in 1998. Together they founded EdChoice (formerly the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation), with the aim of promoting the use of school vouchers and freedom of choice in education. She also co-produced the PBS television series, Free to Choose, and assisted her husband in writing his 1962 political philosophy book Capitalism and Freedom.

Jan Martel (bridge)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Janet Friedman Martel (born February 26, 1943) is an American bridge player from Davis, California.[1] A graduate of University of California, Berkeley, she is a retired attorney and a past president of the United States Bridge Federation (USBF).[1] She is married to Chip Martel, a world champion player. She was previously married to Lew Stansby another world champion player. Her parents Milton and Rose Friedman were both free market economists.[2]

Martel has won seven national championships, or national-rated events at North American Bridge Championships meets.[3] Playing under the name Jan Stansby with Pat Leary in 1974, she won the Whitehead Women’s Pairs, the premier ACBL annual championship for women pairs.[a]

She was inducted into the ACBL Hall of Fame in 2012. [5]

Bridge accomplishments[edit]

Honors[edit]

  • ACBL Hall of Fame, Blackwood Award, 2012[5][6]

  • ACBL Honorary Member, 2018

Wins[edit]

Runners-up[edit]

Reading this right after reading your post on John Garcia. Sounds nearly identical to his works in many ways.